"Ousted" Intel CEO Steps In To Defend The Firm's 18A Process, Says Yield Rate % Isn't The Right Metric To Measure Semiconductor Progress
https://wccftech.com/ousted-intel-ceo-steps-in-to-defend-the-firms-18a-process-says-yield-rate-isnt-the-right-metric-to-measure-semiconductor-progress/
97 points · 9 comments · view on lemmy.world
9 Comments
just_another_person@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 1y
Well, he's not technically wrong. You need the actual production metrics to say if he's full of shit though.
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 25 pts · 1y
Tldr it should be yield rate per area
dinckelman@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 1y
aaaa@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 1y
Gelsinger was hired as a known long time engineer, rather than as a business expert. I would trust his numbers from an engineering perspective, even though I was laid off under his rule
wewbull@feddit.uk · 13 pts · 1y
All depends on the maturity of the process. 10% for a new design on a bleeding edge process is possibly viable. You'll then tweak the design and process to get the yield up.
orclev@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1y
Only exception would be if they can produce those wafers at 1/10th of the previous cost, but I highly doubt that's the case.
iopq@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
If it's 1/10 of the cost of purchasing them from TSMC, it's viable
GorgeousWalrus@feddit.org · 9 pts · 1y
Yield over die area should be the metric.
If you have a chip that is 50% of the wafer area, a single fault will lead to a yield of 50%. Now compare it with a chip that is 1% of the wafer area, the same single fault gets a yield of 99%.
So comparing the yields of two processes without factoring in the die area is not a fair game.
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 1y
It's not the right measure for progress. It's the right measure for viability. If yield is terrible, the end product may cost too much to market.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y